Farewell to ‘name and shame’

THE EDITOR: Within recent times we note with alarming concern an escalating trend by lenders to publish the names of their debtors in the daily newspapers almost with personal vexation, under the social guise of “Whereabouts of” and “Request to Contact”, while employees willfully repeat their “Disclaimer” announcing a previous employee is no longer in their employ, or a bank would list the number plate of a repossessed vehicle they now wish to sell. Prior to this, we have just recovered from a 19-year campaign of “For Sale by Mortgage” where banks and insurance companies would callously list the defaulted homeowners name in bold caps as if selling them and not their property. Repeated letters and lobbying from Public Interest Research Group was instrumental in reversing the latter.

The worst of the personal victimisation blitz was the recent unprecedented whole page advertisement in which a government agency, more so one charged with the mandate of making micro loans to small if not neophyte entrepreneurs, placed photographs of its debtors in the press headlined “Request to Contact”, which is consistent with seeking wanted criminals. At a meeting with regulatory authorities in which we raised this unsavoury practice, a perplexed attendee innocently asked “In what country that happened?” Everyone in Trinidad and Tobago knows the meaning of these advertisements, including bewildered visitors, and PIRG reiterates that it is in no way whatsoever advocating or condoning anyone not honouring this financial obligations which can only be beneficial to all concerned.

However, we find these advertisements to be counter productive, and undesirable of the civil society we all wish to craft. People of conscience cannot be reticent or facetious while influential lenders perpetuate the art of naming and shaming debtors whom they previously attracted and qualified for loans driven by the “inherent risk for profits” motive, yet now wish to spit out and publicly humiliate, and warn the public against, simply because the borrower can no longer contribute to their balance sheet. Local banks are fully conscious that these destructive collection tactics are neither practised nor tolerated in civilised societies. When you think that consumers paid interest and nuisance charges over a period of years as great customers of these institutions, it’s hard to fathom they have suddenly turned on their clients in such a manner, and become their enemies.

Whatever mask these advertisers choose to wear, it is indeed lucid that the citizens targeted in these advertisements are people of the east/west corridor, the true consumer and nucleus of the economic engine. What is needed quite divergent from this destructive paradigm is a programme of financial planning and budgeting; guidance to spending priority versus a one size fit all marketing approach, and adherence to social responsibility and its overall benefits. These aloof big boys cannot comprehend that by sincerely focusing on a consumer enables them to better understand a product, and builds loyalty, which is far more advantageous than customer satisfaction. Further, it is indeed immature for any lender earning massive profits through taking inherent risks not to expect a minute portion of such loans to be uncollectible, and are either insured or calculated in the overall cost of doing business. If however, they wish to be defensive and portray this to be a majority of bad loans, then, something ought to be definitely wrong with their qualifying parameters and they should instead advertise their folly. Many young people leave school untrained in the dictates of prudent financial management only to have their lives destroyed through feelings of inferiority and incompetence by retaliatory public embarrassment perpetuated on them by lenders. Many a homeowner lost their job, and inevitably their home, through many a genuine reason and should not have to pay such a high price via punitive publicity.

PIRG have cases of responsibility but delinquent borrowers actually contacting their credit card companies to make future payment arrangements only to have their names appear in the press the following week. To add callous insult in a country notoriously lacking in consumer rights and protection but abundant in untrained and unregulated hustlers calling themselves collection agencies, one bank uses a particular agency that instructed the bank to abdicate its responsibility by refusing payments from its debtors insisting that they be referred to this collection agency who then bilks the debtor all manner of usury and abusive “collection fees”, interest and other charges after a barrage of intimidating scare tactics. Many such agencies are impervious to the fact that their very existence depends on consumers not paying their bills yet gallantly trample on the rights of the poor to fatten their pockets, aided and abetted by prosperous financial giants overly concerned about improving their balance sheets. We wish therefore to admonish these advertisers and their cohorts to be wary of being selfish and parochial to the extent that they are uncalculating of the dangers of going too far, and seek instead to find solutions that are both legal and moral. This method would certainly guarantee a solid social equilibrium for players and consumers alike, both dependants on the other for survival.

TREVOR HOSTEN
Chairman
Public Interest Research Group (PIRG)